I’ve been using PopOS for a few months now, and I’m interested in Arch, but I’m worried about whether or not I have enough experience to do that successfully. Also, I have an Nvidia GPU until I start a new build in the next year or so. I don’t know if that’ll be a problem in Arch. It was a major issue with Fedora for me.
I’m willing to learn the terminal, but right now I’m still pretty dependent on tutorials to do more than basic things, like installing software. Most of those are catered to Ubuntu-based distros, so I’m concerned I won’t have the luxury of guides to more complex terminal stuff.
Am I overthinking this? Or should I wait longer (maybe even until I build a new PC)?
How difficult is the transition from Ubuntu-based to Arch?
In my experience the only library versioning conflict I encountered was with GNOME and Budgie which has been fixed. Flatpak separates every single app which also means complicated directories so I avoid it and don’t really see the necessity of it.
I didn’t like it because of discussions of it online. But then my Steam malfunctioned because of a Mesa update and I decided to try it anyway and form my own opinion. Turns out it works really well (for me), it’s performant and I like that it installs without root password and is mildly sandboxed so installers can’t put files just anywhere in my system.
It’s not so much about necessity of it as it’s pros vs. cons of different package managers, Flatpak vs. pacman vs rpm vs snap vs appimage and repositories (the AUR is nice for example, but also a bit like the Wild West), etc. Pick what fits your personal philosophy and enjoy.
Weird, I also had a Steam malfunction due to xdg-portal-gnome. Was it around July by any chance? When I tried to install Flatpak to resolve it, it resolved it at first but then broke again after reboot